|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:After reading all this, I've decided that The Alternative is a great invention. I regret posting that, now.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:The thrust of their summary decided to just ignore the data on women for some reason, maybe because it was their desired result or maybe they just decided since men do most of the speeding they could just act like the data on women didn't exist, maybe a little of both. But as for data? Or are you extrapolating from that caveat to create a broader conclusion for yourself that their central findings are wrong? Or are you accusing a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine of misrepresenting data? For what purpose? We can't get beyond the concept because the concept is wrong, unfortunately. Speeding tickets do not deter speeding. Given that the conduct actually proscribed by speeding tickets is completely innocuous of itself, I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. And yes, having laws on the books that punish without sound purpose de-legitimizes the legal system. How could it not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
What's the ruckus itt, someone fill me in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:What's the ruckus itt, someone fill me in. Randbrick found a study that shows speeding tickets only provide a marginal amount of specific deterrence and he's extrapolated that to mean speeding tickets don't provide general deterrence because he doesn't understand the difference between the two. And now instead of discussing the lovely way the ferguson cops and courts are abusing traffic regs and targeting poor blacks to generate revenue with lovely fees we're railing against how we're all victims of the system cause speeding tickets are totally illegitimate on face value, man. Also that time you went by a cop going 5 over and he didn't pull you over was the day justice died.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:What's the ruckus itt, someone fill me in. Did you really think the Mike Brown Ferguson thread would be a bastion of civil discourse and enlightened discusssion
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Goons love to hold up random studies they just googled 30 seconds ago and briefly skimmed as gospel truth. bbb...bbbut a professor did this! Also arguing about speeding tickets in a thread about unarmed black men being gunned down has got to be the whitest thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Randbrick found a study that shows speeding tickets only provide a marginal amount of specific deterrence and he's extrapolated that to mean speeding tickets don't provide general deterrence because he doesn't understand the difference between the two. And now instead of discussing the lovely way the ferguson cops and courts are abusing traffic regs and targeting poor blacks to generate revenue with lovely fees we're railing against how we're all victims of the system cause speeding tickets are totally illegitimate on face value, man. There is a bill going through the MO Senate right now that would limit fines to 10% of a municipality's revenue collection, and of course the mayors of all these tiny little cities went on the radio to whine about it and also whine about consolidation of the city/county. Minarchist posted:Did you really think the Mike Brown Ferguson thread would be a bastion of civil discourse and enlightened discusssion Eat chain
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
tsa posted:Also arguing about speeding tickets in a thread about unarmed black men being gunned down has got to be the whitest thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Agreed, but I'm not sure what kind of conversation we can have if we can't even acknowledge that traffic regulations serve a legitimate purpose We can have any sort of conversation, because nobody gives a poo poo about the general idea of traffic law until dumbshit concern trolls decided to pull the "don't do the crime" shtick in order to distract from the obviously hosed up nature of traffic citations in Ferguson Missouri. We don't need to discuss the nature of traffic law in this thread. We can discuss the nature of law in Ferguson. But people keep moving away from that. I wonder why that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Randbrick found a study that shows speeding tickets only provide a marginal amount of specific deterrence and he's extrapolated that to mean speeding tickets don't provide general deterrence because he doesn't understand the difference between the two. And now instead of discussing the lovely way the ferguson cops and courts are abusing traffic regs and targeting poor blacks to generate revenue with lovely fees we're railing against how we're all victims of the system cause speeding tickets are totally illegitimate on face value, man. Ferguson is a shithole, and it is not unique. What you have in minor traffic tickets is a system that produces little if any benefit, which has enormous social costs, and which is almost designed for abuse by putting laws on the books that cannot be enforced evenly without shutting down the roads. I think the question is not whether speeding tickets are being abused - they absolutely are. And they are being abused, near as I can see, with no commensurate public benefit to outweigh the harm that system does to the legitimacy of the court, the public welfare, and, particularly, the harm they do to marginalized people. So why not get rid of them? Why trust cops with discretion they are known to abuse for invisible benefits? What is the upshot to having police act in this way where they are, at best, an annoyance and, at worst, the devastating entry point to potentially ruinous and exploitative debtor's jail. A law which punishes people by depriving them of time, property and, potentially even their freedom without commensurate benefit to public safety or any actual moral weight to the proscribed behavior is illegitimate on face value. Man. How could it not be? Do you have a different, personal definition of legitimacy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:We absolutely can, depressive. You should just get it over with and kill yourself if you're gonna be obnoxious about your brain defects, frankly. Please get banned
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Glad to see the D&D drunk thread has moved back over here. Feels better this way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:I regret posting that, now. You'll know better next time you think about reopening a thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Everyday Lurker posted:You'll know better next time you think about reopening a thread. You can't tell me what to do, it's a free country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:You can't tell me what to do, it's a free country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I agree with it, but the problem is that police treat pretty much anyone as something they are willing to destroy. They point guns at people with incredibly ease instead of the respect it deserves. Yeah, that's an issue that definitely needs to be attacked, the perception on the part of the police that everyone they encounter is a valid target to be brutalized or killed in the name of their own feelings of insecurity. That said, shooting at someone you don't need to kill remains high on the list of terrible and blatantly unacceptable ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:We can have any sort of conversation, because nobody gives a poo poo about the general idea of traffic law until dumbshit concern trolls decided to pull the "don't do the crime" shtick in order to distract from the obviously hosed up nature of traffic citations in Ferguson Missouri. Because you're not supposed to do the loving crime. I'm sure Ferguson is hosed up more malicious ways as well, but a big part of this conversation is deciding how to manage the conflicting legitimate interest that is enforceable traffic laws and the protection of poor people from having their lives ruined because they can't pay a traffic citation. How do you have a remotely intelligent conversation to that end when the starting position is "gently caress the police, speeding tickets are illegitimate". Randbrick posted:I extrapolated nothing about general deterrence from that article. It was also, unfortunately, the only article I could find anywhere that actually cared to look at this issue. Are you seriously arguing that there's a general deterrence against minor speeding, when the prevailing speed of traffic in any area is almost universally 5-10+ mph over? Apologies -- I thought everyone knew that people speed all the time. Do you not? Holy loving poo poo dude, sorry you didn't extrapolate anything you just straight made poo poo up then. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reason you couldn't find a study on the general deterrence is because its so obviously loving true that no one has bothered wasting their time conducting a formal study on it. It does not provide a deterrent effect for people to go under the specific posted limit, it provides a deterrent effect for people to stay within the minor level of violation they know the cops won't bother them about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 12:41
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:We can have any sort of conversation, because nobody gives a poo poo about the general idea of traffic law until dumbshit concern trolls decided to pull the "don't do the crime" shtick in order to distract from the obviously hosed up nature of traffic citations in Ferguson Missouri. However, it's extremely telling that the people who are unable or unwilling to look at policies on the basis of effectiveness are arguing that there's nothing wrong happening in Ferguson, because it shows how racism metamorphosizes into race-neutral justifications for its existence, and also speaks to the basic futility of arguing in this case- if someone won't accept that it's valid to look at how something functions in practice, then all the evidence in the world that police officers exercise their discretion on minor infractions primarily against blacks and other minority groups won't convince them that any reform is necessary or desirable.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:You can't tell me what to do, it's a free country. I guess if you can still say it, it must be true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because you're not supposed to do the loving crime. I'm sure Ferguson is hosed up more malicious ways as well, but It's no different when it was used to explain Rice's death, Garner's death, Brown's death, Reid's death or Gurley's death. Not to mention any time someone gets shot by the police and lives to tell about it or black people are getting disproportionately targeted by Law Enforcment, the same people who think that speaking out against systematic racism = sjw. quote:a big part of this conversation is deciding how to manage the conflicting legitimate interest that is enforceable traffic laws tsa posted:Also arguing about speeding tickets in a thread about unarmed black men being gunned down has got to be the whitest thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Holy loving poo poo dude, sorry you didn't extrapolate anything you just straight made poo poo up then. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reason you couldn't find a study on the general deterrence is because its so obviously loving true that no one has bothered wasting their time conducting a formal study on it. It does not provide a deterrent effect for people to go under the specific posted limit, it provides a deterrent effect for people to stay within the minor level of violation they know the cops won't bother them about. I'm unsure why you'd argue any general deterrent effect could possibly exist for a law that is characterized primarily by everyone breaking it routinely and without thought. I'm not even sure how you'd measure the general deterrent effect of enforcing a law that everyone breaks. Do you mean to introduce a new measure for deterrence that focuses not on breaking the law, but on the extent to which the law is regularly and casually broken? Like measuring the effectiveness of jaywalking statutes by the average distance of the average jaywalker from the crosswalk? Of course, all of this is also setting aside the grotesque implementation of our traffic ticketing regime. Near as I can tell, on the basis of nothing in particular, you want to continue enforcing an unenforceable legal regime that criminalizes everyday human behavior. You want to do this despite the fact that doing so opens a door to enormous abuse by discriminatory policy and practice. In order to defend this apparent backwards reasoning, you've apparently decided that the actual purpose of this particular law is not to actually do what the law says, but instead to set some sort of abstruse "grace field" in which you can openly flout the law, like everyone else, but only be punished if you flout the law to some subjective degree that a particular officer decides is just too much based on whatever reasoning that officer finds appealing at the moment. Would you be open to an amendment to the everyday speeding statute which would require that everyone drive within 5-10 mph above the posted limit, since that is apparently what you think the law is supposed to do? I am still baffled why anyone would want to perpetuate a system that extends discretion to officer to enforce or not enforce a law which would leave the overwhelming majority of the population subject to ticketing at the subjective whim of a police officer. Even if we didn't know that systems tends to abuse, and even if we didn't have the proper historical record to see how this system can be used as a bludgeon against the poor and marginalized by regional governments, why on earth would you want to open a door that leads nowhere good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
This reminds me of when the Virginia government couldn't get its poo poo together because they promised no new taxes but then had a funding crisis. The answer was clearly to issue $1000-2000 tickets for speeding and failure to indicate. We had the same absurd arguments that if you were breaking the law the fines were justified since minor traffic violations were clearly the most important thing to enforce. Obviously there was no reason to believe that the excessively high fines were intended to be a tax on unlucky drivers, it HAD to be for safety and there HAD to be a good reason for them and if you got caught well it was your own fault because you should be obeying the law even if no one around you was. You knew the punishment so it didn't matter it was ridiculously excessive and could ruin someone that was on a tight budget. I mean after people complained they were nice enough to create a payment system where you could give chunks of your salary every month to pay off that speeding ticket. Some people have a serious obsession with making sure that people are dogmatically adhering to laws even when society at large or those very people aren't. It's irritating normally but when you add in racially motivated policing it becomes much more odious since they move the culpability onto the people being targeted and oppressed as just not trying hard enough to be Good Citizens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:I don't want to be rude or presume anything, and I don't mean to offend the blind. But I will assume you have eyes. I will assume you have driven. I will assume, having eyes, having driven, you share the life experience to know that the prevailing rate of travel on the majority of roads is consistently above the posted speed limit. It's a bullshit bad faith argument anyway. I've been plucked out of the middle lane of I-5 going the same speed as everyone else and issued a speeding ticket. Some pig doing his monthly duty of revenue collection no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:What's the ruckus itt, someone fill me in. A concerted effort to make the thread lovely so it will be closed, done by posters who are racist and angry that the thread criticizes them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Personally I'd love to see more people getting pulled over for failure to signal. poo poo's dangerous as all hell. Don't even ticket them, just pull them over for a lecture. I honestly think traffic enforcement when enforced fairly and done in a vacuum (I.e. not to fish for non-traffic violations) is something that could provide a benefit. Failure to yield, tailgating, signaling, improper turns, obstruction, just impose a 10-15 minute time penalty during rush hour for people who don't give a gently caress about other drivers and see if that works. The problem is that empowering the current cop culture to pull even more people over for even less clear cut poo poo (tailgating for example, what's a violating proximity for that?) would undoubtedly result in unfair application and harassment so it isn't anything more than roadway utopianism on my part. I'd vote against it if it was some referendum because it's just another form of licensure granted to a racist system for their oppressive ends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Personally I'd love to see more people getting pulled over for failure to signal. poo poo's dangerous as all hell. Don't even ticket them, just pull them over for a lecture. I honestly think traffic enforcement when enforced fairly and done in a vacuum (I.e. not to fish for non-traffic violations) is something that could provide a benefit. Failure to yield, tailgating, signaling, improper turns, obstruction, just impose a 10-15 minute time penalty during rush hour for people who don't give a gently caress about other drivers and see if that works. I'd agree with that. I'd be fine with the average officer issuing 100% warnings in a day, assuming that speed limits were set for optimal traffic flow and not optimal revenue generation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because you're not supposed to do the loving crime. I'm sure Ferguson is hosed up more malicious ways as well, but a big part of this conversation is deciding how to manage the conflicting legitimate interest that is enforceable traffic laws and the protection of poor people from having their lives ruined because they can't pay a traffic citation. How do you have a remotely intelligent conversation to that end when the starting position is "gently caress the police, speeding tickets are illegitimate".  Talk about Ferguson, nobody started talking about generalities until morons descended to apologize for racism in Ferguson.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Radish posted:If people didn't want to get fines they can't pay, they shouldn't be living in a low-income area with a government that is issuing excessive tickets in order to generate revenue rather than raising taxes. Or, ya know, be a bit more careful about what law they decide to break. When I had no insurance you can bet I was careful as gently caress driving and only went somewhere when i had to. Oh, but that means people would have to drive with some sanity...gently caress that, free for all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Has anyone driven anywhere in Asia before? Because cops don't enforce speeding there and it's probably the most dangerous place I have ever seen as far as driving goes. E: At least in South Korea and Southwest Asia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Cole posted:Has anyone driven anywhere in Asia before? Because cops don't enforce speeding there and it's probably the most dangerous place I have ever seen as far as driving goes. What in the bluest of blue fucks does this have to do with Ferguson, Michael Brown, Darren Wilson, or punitive fines destroying someone's livelihood? Edit for content : http://www.kmov.com/news/editors-pick/St-Ann-officers-training-on-state-of-the-art-simulator-286043991.html St. Ann, one of the nearby municipalities, has come up with a simulation to illustrate to the public what sort of scenarios the police face. Wonder if they'd put police through a similar scenario from the protesters viewpoint? Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Or, ya know, be a bit more careful about what law they decide to break. When I had no insurance you can bet I was careful as gently caress driving and only went somewhere when i had to. So basically what you're saying is if you are going to break the law it helps to be lucky and/or not the type of person police randomly pull over for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
As we all are aware, people are Rational Actors with Perfect Information in this Just World we live in, thus all laws are 100% necessary and fairly enforced. So I don't see a problem with the Ferguson situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Also racism and money generation through tickets as a concept simply don't exist in our police departments and thus in an area with a disproportionately large amount of traffic penalties the only reasonable conclusion is that the populace at large disregards laws to their personal determent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:What in the bluest of blue fucks does this have to do with Ferguson, Michael Brown, Darren Wilson, or punitive fines destroying someone's livelihood? I think a protest simulator is an amazing idea. You could have scenarios like "Crossing a crosswalk" or "Performing a newscast" Safety note: you may not want to attempt any training scenarios if you have a sensitivity to "smoke"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Down is up, reality is a sham, there's absolutely no risk of job loss by asking the boss for time off to go to court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Cole posted:Has anyone driven anywhere in Asia before? Because cops don't enforce speeding there and it's probably the most dangerous place I have ever seen as far as driving goes. Are they like "wing wong, this seat is too low"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Although you must have probable suspicion to pull someone over, I have been told by several lawyers how there are numerous court decisions forming case law saying that even if you know you're being pulled over by an officer that is breaking the law you are not allowed to escape to safety. Apparently, it is therefore "lawful" for an officer to pull over a woman because she's sexy just to oggle her. There is a huge difference between, "I feel like I wasn't speeding," that is a matter to be decided in court and, "I know without a doubt that I haven't violated the law but that cop is pulling me over to kick my rear end." The shorthand I've heard is, "bad stop." Even if it is a bad stop, you must comply. It's a wonderful country to live in: unlawful searches, home invasion, assaults, and any manner of crimes are supported by the courts so long as you're wearing blue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Although you must have probable suspicion to pull someone over, I have been told by several lawyers how there are numerous court decisions forming case law saying that even if you know you're being pulled over by an officer that is breaking the law you are not allowed to escape to safety. Apparently, it is therefore "lawful" for an officer to pull over a woman because she's sexy just to oggle her. There is a huge difference between, "I feel like I wasn't speeding," that is a matter to be decided in court and, "I know without a doubt that I haven't violated the law but that cop is pulling me over to kick my rear end." Well if she wasn't wearing that dress... Yeah that bullshit occurs as well. But removing all subjectivity from the police doesn't seem to be the answer to most problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Although you must have probable suspicion to pull someone over, I have been told by several lawyers how there are numerous court decisions forming case law saying that even if you know you're being pulled over by an officer that is breaking the law you are not allowed to escape to safety. Apparently, it is therefore "lawful" for an officer to pull over a woman because she's sexy just to oggle her. There is a huge difference between, "I feel like I wasn't speeding," that is a matter to be decided in court and, "I know without a doubt that I haven't violated the law but that cop is pulling me over to kick my rear end." In my case, I thought the cop was pulling me over but he was actually pulling over my stepfather, who I was following, for what I later learned was a blown tail light. Funny thing though, the tail light was perfectly fine, it even lit up in front of the cop as he pulled over. One half-day off work for a DMV appointment later, he didn't have a fine. He just had to take half a day off work. Thankfully his workplace is union and he wasn't fired for it but it was unabashed bullshit. Having a black stepfather exposed me to the occasional second-hand racism like waiting an hour in a nearly empty restaurant and getting pulled over for no goddamn reason other than to be hosed with and it makes me irrationally angry that people loving excuse it like my own drat eyes were lying about the speedometer or the tail light or the goddamn wait staff's lovely glances. That poo poo exists and denying it is the distilled loving essence of cowardice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Although you must have probable suspicion to pull someone over, I have been told by several lawyers how there are numerous court decisions forming case law saying that even if you know you're being pulled over by an officer that is breaking the law you are not allowed to escape to safety. Apparently, it is therefore "lawful" for an officer to pull over a woman because she's sexy just to oggle her. There is a huge difference between, "I feel like I wasn't speeding," that is a matter to be decided in court and, "I know without a doubt that I haven't violated the law but that cop is pulling me over to kick my rear end."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:13
|
|